tar

Willie71, ? My caution was to be cognizant of the "implied" racism of the study presented, where it was suggested that crime went down 18-24 years after legalization. If the study suggests that it is better for poor people or people that need government assistance to have abortions than to have "unwanted" children, there is a behind the scenes "purpose" of having "those" people, not have children. I do not argue that there is institutional racism in this country, but I do not believe that just because you are a democrat, that means you cannot be racist, or be against upward mobility. Not every rich and powerful mover and shaker and opinion maker in this country is republican, and not every conservative republican is a racist, and racism is not a private concern of the republican party. There are blacks that don't trust whites, there are Puerto Ricans that don't trust Japanese people. There are rich blacks that don't trust poor blacks in gangs. There are Cubans who are Republican. Willie71, you address my post as if I am against abortion, and against abortion on religious grounds. Neither is true. I am against abortion if it's purpose is to keep the black population in check. Could there be such an unvoiced undercurrent? If so, it is just as important to counter such institutional racism as it is to counter a "good ol' boys" network commanding the corporate board room, or country club. Regards, TAR

John Cuthber, Well I am missing something. If you abort a fetus because you don't want the child, and that turns out to reduce the crime rate 18-24 years later, that means that if you would have had the child, you would have raised him or her to be a criminal, presumably because you were not in a position to, or did not have the where-with-all to raise them at all. That is if we are figuring that the correlation of the legalization of abortion to a lower crime rate later, actually proved that legalization was a good thing, because it lowered the crime rate, later on. For the legalization to have caused the lower crime rate, not having an abortion would have to have resulted in a future criminal being born. Since the baby that was not aborted was not a criminal because he was not aborted, then the reasons for him becoming a criminal had to do with his upbringing. So abortions were performed, after legalization, of fetuses that would have been born into a bad situation, had they been born. Or so I surmise the study is trying to say. If not wanting babies to be born into bad situations is the goal of legalization, then legalization, on those grounds is saying something about the mother's fitness to be a mom, or perhaps the odds of having babies turn into criminals when you are a drug addict is high, and its better for society for you not to have babies. Or it is sort of like, after the fact birth control. My comment about killing a child already born into a bad situation, was not because I see no difference between killing children, and helping a woman have a healthy life, and medical care, and a healthy, wanted baby, or to get an abortion, if she does not want the child. I was just pointing out that the only difference between terminating the life of a fetus and the life of a child was a matter of timing, if the fetus was viable, or would have been normal had the birth occurred. If on the other hand the fetus was damaged because the mother was a drug addict, then perhaps the abortion was more like a mercy killing to keep a defective human from being born into the world. But if the abortion was performed because Planned Parenthood did not think the mother could handle a child or the mother did not want the child, then its more like me not knowing the difference between killing a child and arranging not to be a parent by aborting the fetus. Regards, TAR Overtone, I believe people, including myself automatically favor themselves over others. Automatically racist, in favoring people like themselves over people unlike themselves. With this understanding one has to make a conscious decision to not be that way, in order to not be that way. As in the paper thrown into the recyling can exercise, we have to advocate for the people in the seats behind, that are not in a good situation, if we are good troopers. But the teacher did not suggest anybody change seats. My suggestion in 140 is that I have been taught to, and I do prevent myself from acting like a KKK member or a Nazi, because those are things that I abhor, do not like to see in others and do not allow myself to be anything like. And similarly if the unwanted stereotype of a black man, is that he is lazy, prone to violence and drug use and crime, and such, that a black man should consciously not engage in those behaviors. Regards, TAR

Bill Angel, I have to admit that you have a good point. Bringing down the cost of prescription drugs is much more liable to be helpful than enabling companies to charge excessive amounts. However I would suggest that forcing insurance companies to cover excessively expensive drugs is not good free market behavior. If for instance the cost of something is really excessive, a normal family might find another way to deal with the situation, or take something less effective, but much cheaper. Forcing insurance companies to cover excessively expensive procedures and drugs, does indeed increase the cost of coverage for everyone. And more importantly, a lot of the medical coverage "options" that we have under the new medical insurance system, have large deductibles and the rules for what is covered and not is somewhat arbitrary and subject to conditions and such, where you wind up often paying the large rates OKed under the system, before the insurance company even pays a dollar. In the end result, we pay for the coverage, and we pay the deductable or the copay. The actuaries at the insurance companies have to raise the rates, and set the deductables, according to the cost of the drugs and procedures. The higher the costs, the more we will pay. Nobody is getting a free lunch. We pay if our employers contribute, since they don't have that money for our salaries, we pay as the cost of our chosen programs rises, we pay to subsidize the insurance payments of low income folk. So bottom line, it is the cost of the procedure, and the cost of the prescriptions that is the most important thing to get down. This is harder to do when there are so many rules and set prices and mandatory things, and no free market setting of the price. The only choices permitted by the plan, is whether you are buying Gold, Silver or Bronze levels of protection. Everybody is supposed to be protected against bankrupting costs, after the deductible is paid, but even then there are limits and things that are not covered. There is not the ability to pick a doctor you like, who charges a chicken for his services, or to buy an unapproved drug. The cost of malpractice and injury insurance on the doctors and the drug makers, increases the cost even further. The system is rather complicated and people wind up one way or the other paying not only for their own care, but for everybody elses. If for instance a multi-million dollar procedure, would save my life, but bankrupt my family for generations, I might chose not to have it. If it was covered by my society, I might have it, and it would wind up bankrupting my society for generations. Obama started out saying he was after bringing down the cost of health care, and establishing informational sharing and automated ways that would allow doctors and healthcare providers to make good informed decisions about your care. When people balked at providing universal health care, paid for by the government, the thing morphed into what we have today. It is neither universal healthcare (where the government pays for services and procedures, and drug,) nor has the cost of health care been lowered, in fact the insurance burden has just been spread to the younger worker, who doesn't need so much coverage. Nor have the promised world class informational sharing and record systems come to pass. So yes, I would agree that Republicans don't like the idea of being forced to pay for other people's procedures, but I don't see that as an evil feeling to have. If we had universal health care, then we would all be paying for each other's needs, but we might not be able to afford giving everybody that needed one, a new heart. The decision on who should get expensive procedures, should not be in the hands of a government clerk. And the complicated rules for establishing what should or shouldn't be allowed in any particular situation, should be up to the doctor and the patient. How can we, as a responsible society, choose for everybody, what is best for them, in terms of healthcare? It is not fair to charge a person for city water, when they have a well. And its not fair to charge Telsa prices to people that, by choice, drive an old Ford. So, yes, we should find ways to lower the cost, not ways to spread higher costs around. Regards, TAR I was setting up a yearly visit to my doctor and told the appointment maker that I would like my doctor to take a look at my ankle that has been giving me some trouble. She said he couldn't do that because it was going to be a well care visit, and he wouldn't have the time, and I would have to be charged differently. ?????????????? John Cuthber, That is an interesting study. I had not seen that one. But correlation and cause are sometimes hard to separate, and making abortion legal might cut down on unwanted children, and an unwanted child, or a child born into a bad situation where there is not the proper cultivating atmosphere, might be more liable to commit a crime...but that is almost like saying it would be better to kill children that don't have good parents, then to allow them to mature to the age where they are going to commit a crime. In the end, I think the study is sort of flakey, and the correlation might not be a good argument for abortion, but a good argument for encouraging couples to only engage in unprotected sex if they are willing and able to take care of a potential child. I was thinking the other day, when we were talking about abortion in the case of rape, that the child had nothing to do with the rape, and an abortion at that point is a punishment of the rapist, as his seed is not spread, and a blessing for the raped, as that she absolutely does not want the devil seed in her body, but the fetus. He/she is innocent. Regards, TAR

John Cuthber, So, the problem is drugs, and crime and drug laws that put people in prison during their formative years, when they should be getting an education, and too long sentences that take fathers and mothers permanently away from the family. That is not Republican leadership that is the biggest problem. That is too many laws (like three strikes) that take sentencing judgement out of the hands of the judges, and impose mandatory sentencing. The need for putting repeat offenders away though, is a societal need to remove people that have declared war on the system, from the system. So there is some value in not committing the crime. Perhaps poor people should not be put in jail for stealing a loaf of bread, or for smoking weed, or taking a shot of heroin. But they certainly should be punished for throwing rocks off overpasses onto cars or for destroying property or looting, or rape, or violent muggings and car jacking and such. When I worked in Newark a young man took off with my radio that I kept in the break room. I saw him running at the other side of the parking lot, and took off after him. I was actually a pretty fast runner, and he was slowed down by the radio so I was catching up to him...but then I looked at the situation, me a white boy, running after a black boy in a heavily black area. What was I going to do if I caught him? What might happen to me, running through his neighborhood, after him. I let the radio go. But subsequent discussions with that "spread my seed" guy, informed me of the fact that a majority of the young black men in the neighborhood wind up serving some prison time. It is like a right of passage. It is not avoided and feared, like in the neighborhood I grew up in. I would not commit a crime because I would not ever want to be in jail. In Newark, however, it was an expectation that drugs were a way of life, stealing from whitie was the way to get the money for the drugs, and eventually you were liable to get caught and sent to jail. Some, I was told, even found jail a safer and more reliable source of food and shelter and medical care, than living on the streets. If I am partially responsible for the institutional racism in this country. I am partially responsible for taking this country from the native Americans, I am partially responsible for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and killing Osama Bin Laden, but I am also partially responsible for freeing the slaves, being the land of opportunity, and all and any good things, that have come from America. There is a way of life, that is lived by many people in this country, that is not based on a cycle of violence, crime, drugs, welfare babies, lack of education, and expectations of prison. There is a way of life, that is lived by many people where work ethic, education, stable marriages, and respect for the law and the system are not the guiding principles. Its a free country, people can live the way they want to live. The question here, to me, is not whether to call into question the workability of having a baby at 15, without a father to share in the keeping of the house and the raising of the children, my question is whether it is actually a cure, a solving of the problem, a being a more responsible government, to enable such inadvisable behavior. Regards, TAR

John, I see the same thing in rural W.Virginia with boarded up meth houses and junk cars and refrigerators dumped in the creek. Mostly white folk there. I was suggesting that people have some personal power, to make the place around them the kind of place they want to live in. Blacks in Philadelphia are equal citizens of the United States of America, as a white man in the semi-rural suburbs is. One of us is not the master and the other slave. One of us is not responsible for the other, as in it is my fault, because I am white, that a black man is poor. There are drugs in the poor areas, white and black. The meth in W.Virginia, the heroin in Paterson. Hispanic, or black or white, there are gangs. There is a different "feel" I got driving though the streets of Newark on the way to NJIT, than there was on campus, where a Job fair had hundreds of young, smart technical students of all colors and nationalities in their suits, looking to take their places in companies needing technical and project planning skills. A line of such fine individuals, wrapped around over 50 yds, long, waiting to get into the gym and tennis center, where the employers were. It was an impressive sight. Our future. Does not mean I am racist, if I blame the inhabitants of a poor area for their conduct, and if I expect them to hold up their end of the bargain in making the U.S. the best place in the world, to live. I do not know who provides the drugs, in the bad areas. I do not know who are the dealers and pimps. But I would imagine that gang leaders are amongst the 10% of the most capable and trustworthy and intelligent, on the block. Where they guide their followers, how they choose to make a living is however my business, in that my neighbor's kids are driving down into Paterson, to buy their heroin. I do not want to see my fellow Americans kill each other over drug deals and territory in Paterson, any more than I want to see a divorce in W. Virgina because the wife has traded sex for meth, or any more than I want to see a KKK member drag a black man through the streets. Shunning a bad actor does not mean I do not consider the actor a fellow American. It just means I do not associate myself with that person, and they need to stop the bad actions, before I accept them back into my "we" camp. Regards, TAR And by the way, my "we" camp has Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, black and hispanic, young and old, male and female, in it. I do not discriminate based on sex, religion, race, national origin, intelligence or wealth. We are all Americans. Does not however mean I cannot get clues to who is among the 90% of good will and who is among the 10% not of good will. My argument in this thread, is that party affiliation is NOT one of the clues from which one can discriminate between the good actors and the bad. And to your thought that rich people probably got rich on someone else's back...maybe so, but that does not mean they are automatically in the 10% of people not of good will. They may very well be important people, people in the top ten percent of intelligence, capability and trustworthiness, that have helped others and their community and their nation, get to where it is. In fact, the odds have it that rich and powerful people HAVE to be involved in the good stuff. Because poor people, evidently, can't get it done. Regards, TAR You can't produce, without a means of production.

John Cuthber, I have a corner property. People throw stuff out of their car, as they pass. Cigarette butts, drink containers, wrappers. I pick it up and put it in a trash can which I set out on the curb. Sometimes garbage cans get blown over and the trash blows around the neighborhood. If I am across the street with the wheelbarrow, I pick up the stuff along the road, so that it is not an eyesore. I put it in the trash and set it out on the curb on garbage pickup day. My point was that I feel responsible for keeping the place looking nice. The town is tasked with picking up the "grit", (the rock left over from the rock and salt mixture put down against ice and snow,) But they don't take it off your lawn (even if you lawn is in the town right of way). I clean up the grit off the corner and my road frontage in the weeks after winter and put it in a pile across the way, where a company that are stewards of that property, push it into a clean level fill area they are maintaining. Point is, that government has their role but it is important for people to police themselves and take care of each other, and take care of the place, on their own. What government does is part of the team effort, and like you said, there are many things a person can not do safely and efficiently by themselves and it is better to have everybody, together (through the government) obtain the equipment and expertise and manpower to get the job done. To see trash, and broken windows, and filth in an area, tells me that the inhabitants don't care to keep it nice. I picked up a lot of trash in the alley behind my daughters apartment, when we were moving her in. There was more trash to pick up when we moved her out, but not as much. Yes I was taken care off when I was young, but I was taken care of by my parents and extended family. Yes I will be taken care of by pension money and social security and medicare, and my 401 monies and my wife's 401 monies, but many of those things I earned. I paid into. Was part of my employment compensation, and so on. Even still, I will be paying taxes "into" the system on the money from my pension and my 401 as I withdraw it. I am being taken care of now, by my wife and our mutual savings, as I don't have a job. But it is up to me to find a job, and take care of myself and pay my property taxes and such if I want to continue to live in a house that pays property tax so the local schools can be supported and the county services (here and in Paterson) can be maintained. And to that, I am in a similar situation to every other citizen. I have no special in to be an insider. I don't belong to any secret organizations, or alumni groups. I don't have a ticket to employment. My one up is that I am a veteran and that gives me a second look, and qualifies me for programs like upSKILL. I don't collect unemployment because I am disqualified because I quit my last job. I can't go back to my old company, they don't want me. I never joined a country club or Elks club or anythings, so I do not have a hook into the local "power structure" and my college went out of business years ago. So I have my skills and talents, my education, my work ethic, my moral code, my character and my smile. Same things that everybody else, black or white has available to them. Regards, TAR Perhaps it is a rental thing. That people do not feel responsible for maintaining a property that does not belong to them. That it is the landlords job, or the city's job or something. Still it is your place. I lived in East Orange years ago and rented a house from the school (the school I graduated from). There was no litter on my property. The place was not cluttered. The grass was cut, the windows cleaned, the porch painted, the sidewalk swept, the broken wood repaired. By my wife and I. Because it was our house. The U.S. is "our" house.

Willie71, I have the same desires to remove institutional racism from the equation, as you do. I spoke about this stuff often with a black roommate and close friend I had in the Army in Germany. I spoke about this stuff often with a black coworker I had (up until February.) Just as I am responsible to NOT live up to KKK stereotypes, blacks are responsible to NOT live up to black stereotypes, to not be slaves, and kept humans. To NOT "get over on whitie", to NOT try and "get over on the man". My daughter went to Temple, which is in the middle of a highly black area in Philadelphia. The apartment she rented with two other girls was just off campus, a half block from the little security hut. Her paved backyard had a 12 ft. high chainlink fence around it with coils of razor wire on top. I was appalled, and always concerned about her safety. Cars were stolen, there was a murder in the subway station two blocks away. The campus was ALWAYS bathed in bright lights. Just a little thing bothered me the most though. There was garbage in the alleys and on the street infront and behind peoples houses. And in opposition to your point, how does institutional racism prevent a person from picking up the trash around their home? My friend at work and I talked every day about Ferguson, and what was going on. We agreed on what probably happened and on who probably lied, and who did what to who, and saw what and said what. One thing I could not figure out, is why the community did not find fault with the young man that was shot, for strongarming the shop keeper and stealing the cigars, and for disrespecting the police officer and for punching the police officer and for fighting for his gun. All these things are a no no. Yes of course there is still racism in this country. Yes of course there is still sexism in this country. Yes of course there is income inequality in this country. But it is not your and my role as "masters" to treat the slaves better, and provide for them so they don't riot. It is the responsibility of every black man and woman to get an education, stay away from the drugs and the gangs, treat each other and their neighborhoods, with respect, follow the laws, be of value to somebody else, earn a living, raise a family, pick up the garbage and make their neighborhoods appealing to business and visitors, and to each other. Institutional racism does not absolve someone from shunning a family member for bad behavior. Back to the intervention we were talking about before. If we think of each other as brothers, and sisters, or at least cousins, and give each other the benefit of the doubt, and try to step in when the other is in trouble with drugs, or is beating their wife, or is foundling their nephew, or otherwise misbehaving, then things would be better. It is not helpful to blame the other guy, for your own failings. Regards, TAR

John Cuthber, Young punk that is more taken by his own intellect than looking at the situation realistically. He is an extortionist and probably a member of the 10% "not of good will". I don't want to be associated with him. I shun him. You take 'm. http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/martin-shkreli.asp?cycle=06 Regards, TAR John Cuthber, One of the things politics is about is who is responsible for who. I am always wondering, when we send money to another country to feed the children, where the parents are, and what are they doing to meet their children's needs. Somebody still has to grow the food, and find a clean water supply. Food and money do not appear by magic. In drought stricken areas, or when hurricanes hit, everybody needs help. In this country, at least, there is usually a low skill job available, and an opportunity to acquire a skill. I have to retract part of my "no government assistance" mantra earlier. I took an IT Project Management course this summer, at NJIT, paid for by an upSKILL grant. I forgot about that. Regards, TAR I am not used to "being taken care off". I always, with my wife, took care of myself. thank you, by the way, for paying for that course for me John Cuthber, Well then, just add that story to whatever exceptions, you were already allowing. "You said geese are white. Well there are exceptions." I was just pointing out one Canadian goose. Regards, TAR

Delta1212, Another aspect of the same personal responsibility platform, is the fact that I do not qualify for government assistance in any regard, because between my wife and I we always made enough to be over the threshold. It always seems unfair to me, that others got free stuff from the government, and I did not. If all citizens are entitled something, it should go to all citizens, like public education. If you on the other hand can get something if you have to many kids or too little money, it turns out it is me providing for your kids. I had a job in Newark during my college years, repairing blinds in an apartment building. The guy that took up the newly cleaned and built ones, and brought me others in need of repair was a black man, who had four children with three different women. He was interested in "spreading his seed", and took far from full responsibility in providing for either the women or the children. The welfare system provided for the kids. The government took over the role of dad. I would rather not see this, and feel that my tax dollars are enabling such irresponsible behavior. Yesterday, somewhere in the area, a newborn with ambilicle cord attached was thrown out of a 7th floor window. The mother was hiding the pregnancy from the boyfriend (who I think was the father) and it turns out the woman herself had worked in "child welfare" in a child protection role. I am thinking it would be better not to have the government take on the role of protector and provider, if such disregard for life is a unintended consequence of such policies. Regards, TAR John Cuthber, There is an interesting story from up in CT where a couple disappeared. It is not known if foul play was involved, but people close to them do not know where they are, or if they are alive. The couple had a nice house and grounds, and were rich by most standards. Some money the wife had, was invested in a rental house. The renter did not pay his rent. The couple tried everything, through the courts to get the renter to pay, and have the investment company take responsibility for the bad investment. The courts however would not evict the renter as they had a special needs child. The couple wound up owing a million dollars in house payments and electric bills and such. They got rich by working hard, as the guy had a garbage collection business and the woman a school librarian. They got unrich, by the court ruling. Regards, TAR John Cuthber, By taking risk to obtain it, I mean this. Years ago, after college, I was thinking about what it was that people paid other people for. This is not proven or backed up by any body else's thinking, but I came up with something like this, in order of value. 1. Your presence. 2. A skill. 3 A talent 4. Taking responsibility. 5. Taking risk. When you look at highly paid jobs, you usually find all these things roled up in one. A boss is usually responsible for many lives, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in plant, equipment and inventory. He takes great personal risk, open to lawsuits and dismissal upon failure, etc. So when I say take risk, I mean somebody was willing to put themselves on the line, and take a chance, where I might not have the guts. Regards, TAR

Delta1212, I have a close family friend who is a small business owner up in CT . He takes the risk, makes the sales and provides the means of production, to employ probably 30 people. The democrats feel they have the right to tell him how much to pay his employees, what benefits he should extend to them, and any number of other paperwork generating exercises. The codes he must follow are often confusing, contradictory, and arbitrary. The decision to hire someone, and how much you are going to pay them, and what perks you are going to offer them, is between you and the employee, or should I think. Little consideration is given to the employer as to the benefit he/she is already extending to society, in employing folk. Yet I often hear phrases uttered by democrats, like "the U.S is rich, no child should ever be in need." The statement makes the assumption that the riches are collectively ours to spend, as we wish. This is not realistic. Anyone that has a lot of money, has either stolen it, won it in the lottery, taken risk to obtain it, worked for it, had it willed to them or otherwise obtained it, in a manner that makes it their money, not ours to spend. Constructing policies and laws aimed at the redistribution of wealth, is communist in principle and creates an unfair situation for the person with the most money. From each according to their capability, to each according to their need, is Marxist. I am just as generous as the next, and I look out for the needy and have often given a buck (that I knew was headed for wine or drugs) to a hungry looking guy on the street that asked if I could spare something, so he could eat. I never took charity from anyone. I was laid off for a week during the downturn and where others applied for unemployment insurance I did not, figuring I could make it and "we" as a government had other mouths to feed. Well, when I was permanently laid off, I took unemployment, as everybody told me that is why I paid unemployment insurance for 30 years. I got a job four months later, so I have "taken charity" for 4 months, but that is it. I went to school, worked, joined the Army, worked again, managed a depot, worked for a typewriter manufacturer for a few years, and a copier manufactured for 25 years. Outside those four months of unemployment, my wife and I only put into the system, we did not take from it. Well my wife did get some social security benefits when she was young after her father died. But most generally I am for personal responsibility and taking care of yourself and am with the Republican Party in expecting that everybody else does the same, and does not bring children into the world that they are not prepared to take care of. Regards, TAR Overtone, Language! Please. Regards, TAR

Overtone, Ok, I think of left as liberal, right as conservative, but I thought that was the general understanding. If we instead are talking about left as anti-establishment and right as establishment, then yes the universities are part of the establishment and seek to prepare their students to run the government, keep the wheels of commerce turning, cure diseases, learn about communication and technology and fly to Mars. And the "media" is there to inform the population as to what is going on in the world, and to entertain. So I am confused, as to what you think the major problem in the United States is. Is everything that the U.S. does, our banking system, our entertainment complex, our military industrial complex, our universities, our hospitals, our media, our farms, our businesses, our energy complex, our transportation complex, our factories and our streets and parks, suspect in your mind? Who does all this stuff? Just Republicans, just Democrats, just Anarchists, just Communists, just Socialists...who? And if it is all of us that are doing it, want to do it and are good at doing it, and it creates a situation where everybody can rise to the level of their own competence and enrich themselves and their families while they do it and live in peace and freedom and security...then why is that a problem? I don't think I have lost this argument yet. You have to describe better, who you are for, not just who you are against. I think you rail against people you rely on to have the way of life that you have. Regards, TAR I saw a "creative playground" built with special funds for special needs children, announced on the TV yesterday. That is the kind of thing I think of as left and liberal, wasteful and unworkable. There were children sitting on the sidewalk, looking like they were disappointed as that maybe they were not going to be allowed to play in the thing, as it was for "special needs" kids. I also saw that a New York "market place" for health insurance went insolvent, and this after two infusions of hundreds of millions of dollars. This I also look at as something the left and liberal democrats set up, even with knowledgeable people telling them it was not realistic and was not going to work. Having these "feelings" does not mean I hate special needs children, nor that I want people to be sick, nor that I am fascist, nor that I listen only to Republican propaganda. It means I saw a playground that looked like a waste of money, that was going to cause more problems than it was going to solve, hanging like forbidden fruit in front of anxious kids, and that a confusing system, the principles of which were never fully understood and fleshed out and tested, and agreed on to be workable, ("the market place"), was failing to work. The thing about the fenced in playground, was that it was the "opening" of the playground, and there were kids there, but nobody was playing. The thing was empty. All the kids were on the outside of the fence. There was nobody, no special needs kids shown enjoying the place. Just normal looking kids, sitting on the sidewalk, waiting for nothing.

Overtone, I was part of the counter culture revolution. I was a hippie. I was on the "Rolling Stone" side of things in the late 60s. I was not at the 68 democratic convention, but many that I associated with, were all for disrupting the convention. In subsequent years I disassociated from groups like the weather underground, but retained a strong desire to see social justice done. I was not a commune hippie, as many of my circle became. I did not go to Viet Nam, and was part of the anti-war contingent. As I said, I later backed McGovern in his election bid. Many of the "radical" thoughts and motives that drove the counter culture revolution, were absorbed by the Democratic Party. Social justice, equality, socialism, feminism, anti-capitalism, were threads that were woven through the counter culture revolution, that still find a home on the campuses and in the Democratic Party. Such is what guides my "feelings" that the democratic party "panders" to the left, to the anti-establishment elements of society. The left is more likely to lean toward Marxism, as the right is more likely to lean toward Nationalism, and as you say, Fascism. But there is also an "establishment" lean that Republicans have, and a "revolutionary" lean that Democrats have. The Cubans that were thrown out of Cuba that had their property ceased by Castro, that I have met, have been conservative republicans, for instance. Regards, TAR Overtone, I really have no idea what you are talking about. How does an article that says 90 percent of the media is controlled by 6 companies prove that 27 percent of the deluded population is controlled by wrong thinking Republicans? Is the democratic party establishment, or anti-establishment, in your view? Is the republican party establishment, or anti-establishment, in your view? I am not sure either why you think universities are not liberal, or left leaning. Maybe not Catholic universities, but although I have very little evidence, what I know of Fairleigh Dickinson University, for instance, going by a workshop on Sustainable Enterprise, that I attended, the place leans a lot further left, than it does right. I don't know if we are arguing at cross purposes or what, but you are hard to nail down. You say a thing, I disagree with your take, and you tell me its not your take I am disagreeing with. That I am mischaracterising your stance, and I don't know what is going on, don't know what is left and what is right, who is fooled and who are the foolers. If 29 percent of us, by your figuring are wrong minded, and fooled by the media, into being wrong minded, that leaves 71 percent to be clear thinking, good Americans. How do us 71 percent think so clearly as to know to only listen to the 10 percent of the media, that is not run by the Military/Industrial complex, or the Republicans, or the Jews, or who ever you have envisioned in your mind is running the country into ruin. Regards, TAR Overtone, The "thing" I was thinking about testing for its possible Fascist nature, was one of the annual projects a local organisation I joined this summer is planning. A Christmas light contest. Regards, TAR

Overtone, I never liked Facists, I don't consider myself one and would like the Nazis and KKK to be marginalized in every way possible. There are republicans that are not Fascists, at least one. And I have run into Fascists and have shunned them. I can not prove that any Republicans other than myself believe in Liberal Democracy but I always thought that most republicans that I have met, are good people, that I do not shun, that do not have Fascist designs. I am open however to inspect my beliefs and check a few things for their possible Fascist leanings. But this part of your 47 year long Fascist lead road to ruin, that has the press being controlled by the fascists does not jive with the feeling that I have had for most of my adult life, that the college campus, and the universities and the press, was obviously and strongly left leaning. Even Hollywood is left leaning. I am not sure, in your characterization how the press gets controlled by the Nazis, when most everybody that is literate shuns them. I was looking at a show today that showed an East German "workhouse" survivor 25 years after reunification. The control of people by "the state", was strong in East Berlin and the government held thousands "in" against their will. They could see there was another way to live, right over the wall, where you were not told "how to be", when to eat, when to exercise, when to sleep. As I recall it was Reagan who said at Brandenburg Gate "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". I spent some time in Germany, as after the second world war, after the defeat of the nazis the place was watched over by the Russians and the English and the Americans and the French, each with their area of responsibility. My father has limited use of his left hand as he was shot by German Machine Gun, severing a nerve,during the battle of the bulge. I was brought up believing it was a good thing to defeat Fascism, and to shut it down, where ever it raised its ugly head. Regards, TAR

Thread, The twelve segments look like this, when imposed on the globe, using the poles the equator and the 35 degree 23 minute latitude lines, North and South. The spacing of the equatorial four points is 90 degrees, and the spacing of the north and south three-points is 90 degrees, and there is 45 degrees between the three points and the equatorial four points. Regards, TAR

Acme, Good quote. But ultimately very realistic. That is, there is a analogy between following the Lord, and following the lord of the land. The despot or leader, the Pope in the Catholic Church, the President in the U.S., Kim Yong whoever in Korea, Buddha, Mohammed, Putin or whoever are both men and symbols of many men (and women.) That is, when the Pope talks sense and washes the feet of the least of us, he speaks for all of us. Whether we are Catholic or not. You have your dictators and you have your benevolent dictators. Was talking to my wife's cousin last week about her time as an exchange student in Spain, years ago. Many spoke of Franco with fond rememberance and thought things were better under his "lordship". Less crime and uncertainty, than under the rule of lesser, local lords. It is not surprising that the despot and the priest, together rule the people. I am not thinking that no religion, no priests is automatically better though. Communism, in theory, does without the priest, but the despot himself (herself?) becomes the Lord. Everybody has read Animal Farm, (or should.) And I am thinking having a Caliph is not conducive to personal freedom and self actualization, either. I heard the leader of North Korea is like a god on Earth and is not challenged, on general principle. I heard that mullahs in Pakistan, keep their people poor and stupid (uneducated) on purpose, and their henchmen simply kill detractors. I don't have to even talk about the inappropriateness of ISIL rule. The Taliban is also probably not the hero of anybody here. The Syrian President, who could probably defeat ISIL in Syria if backed by the U.N. and more than one of the Security Council's members, is universally disliked because of his human rights violations...its not an easy world to pick apart the good from the bad, the workable from the unworkable. The Arab spring may or may not have made things better for Arabs, for instance. Many times, especially from the mouth of Iran's leader, I have heard that the Iranian people do not dislike Americans, they dislike American policy. Like backing Saddam against Iran, and backing Israel in general, and imposing a hurtful trade embargo and so on. It reminds me of Overtone's take. The people are good and our only problem is those Republican policies. We imposed all those policies because they were consistent with our beliefs, our allies and our self interests. The self interests of Americans. Republican and Democrat. Being "good" in this world is a difficult task. Protecting our way of life against our enemies is a difficult task in this world. I would rather we did not hate ourselves so much, and gave our fellow countrymen and women the benefit of the doubt, and looked for the ways we depend on each other, to live the way we live, and look for the many many things we hold dear, in common. Regards, TAR

DrP, I like the fact that we are trying to rectify the situation and remove the slavery and mastery, and male dominated nature of the Old Testament. There are pluses and minuses in any situation however, and my point, or argument in this thread is not that humanism is the best or devil worship is the best or hedonism, or following the Buddha is best. Nor is my point that we should emulate the founding fathers, who owned slaves, were land owners and masters, and did not figure women were equal enough vote, nor that blacks were worth a whole vote. Yes, we took the place from its original inhabitants, but WE did that. Our forefathers, who were escaping British rule. The fact that we are a land of immigrants was symbolically relived when the Pope asked to fly over the Statue on his way to JFK the other day. On another thread, a while back we talked about the fact that the most intelligent and capable folk in the country are the ones that we follow. They are our bosses and heroes, representatives and leaders. They are also probably in the top 10 percent of intelligence, and or in the top 10 percent of capability and trustworthiness. "They" are also "our" leaders. The good ones have our best interests in mind, or at least their version of what our best interests are. We absolutely cannot do it, without our top 10 percent of capability and trustworthiness. So we have two proposed 90-10 splits. I say 90 percent of us are good. I say 10 percent of us are the most capable and trustworthy that lead the nation. But that is two different 90-10 splits. 10 percent of the 10 percent that lead us, are not of good will. So 1 percent commit the graft and corruption, and 9 percent make sure the 1 percent go to jail. But I would guess the graft and corruption is not limited to Democrats in Chicago politics, nor to an unscrupulous Bernie Madoff (whose political affiliation does not matter.) Back of the envelope figuring would tell me that all republican leaders can not fit into the segment of the population that is smart enough to lead, and be of bad will. Back of the envelope figuring would tell me that being a democratic leader would not insulate one from being of bad will. This relates to the fathers of our country, in that we take from them the 90 percent of the stuff that makes sense, is workable and that is consistent with our general direction of what indeed is good, and we discard the 10 percent that is unworkable and is inconsistent with the very principles upon which the nation is founded. And if you think about it, the biggest complaint I have with the religious right, is that they are not being very good Christians on some counts, and are not following the constitution (which was put together by WASP male slave owners). Somewhere there we have to give the other side the benefit of the doubt, considering it is probably our brothers and sisters we are railing against. Regards, TAR I just thought of another back of the envelope figuring reality that is very important to this discussion. Each of us has that one little thing (at least) that they did when they were young, that was bad. There are close to 300 million of us. That is 300 million (at least) that have behaved in a manner that even they would consider is "bad". Say there was closer to 200 million of us 47 years ago and all 200 million did one bad thing. 180 million are generally of good will according to the theory, which means that 3 or 4 milllion bad acts per year were committed by people of good will over the last 47 years. I would bet at least a buck fifty that all the bad acts in the last 47 years were not caused by Republican Leadership. Back of the envelope speaking, its not possible.

DrP, No I am not saying you need to be a believer to be good. I am saying that one of the reasons we are good is because Moses told us the 10 things we were supposed to follow, and Jesus and Mohammed showed us. And these lessons and rules are written into our laws, reinforced at services, and lived in the activities of any number of charitable organizations. It does not matter at this point, whether we believe the Pope is god's representative on Earth in a literal way, or a figurative way. The ideas of inclusion and charity and taking care of each other and being good, are already global. Regards, TAR DrP, Probably important in this discussion, of what is problematic in the U.S. IS the fact that we were founded on Judeo-Christian values. Such values are built into our institutions and subsequently into our characters. There is thusly a possibility of a clash of civilizations, when West meets East or Middle East. We might, as a country, not like the way Muslims destroy religious icons, for instance. And Muslims might not like the way we in the West find it OK to hold graven images and make fun of Prophets, charge interest and believe in the father, son and holy ghost. The separation of church and state that is important to us in the U.S. is not so important to Muslims, for instance, who view the idea of the Caliph as a person that rules you politically as well as guides you morally. I think we need to heavily weigh the impact of religion on our moral code and subsequent behavior. And the fact that we are grounded in the Bible has to be accepted as fact. We are Patriarchal, Judgemental, and swift with the sword, as in the old testament, and loving and forgiving and sharing as in the New. We can not just discount our upbringing, both as people and as a nation. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, Why didn't "they" fix it? That is my whole argument here. Whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in office, it is still "our" president sitting in the oval office. We are responsible for his/her mistakes, and the beneficiaries of his/her successes. The president is the leader of the whole country. He/she has to take care of the rich Republican Catholic, and the Democratic Baptist welfare mom in the ghetto. The Fed has more to do with the economy than the president, and they are not supposed to be political. They are charged with worrying about employment and a stable growth rate. If they make a mistake and cause a bubble or a downturn, it probably does not have much directly to do with who is in charge in the White House, or who is on the Supreme Court, or who is making the laws. And that is what politics is about. Trying to "fix" a situation that has gotten out of control. Years ago, I was trying to figure out my political leanings. Why I used to be a Democrat, yet registered Republican. I figured, that the county swings left and right like a pendulum. Too far left is flaky and dreamy and unrealistic (like the failed communes after the 60s). Too far right is oppressive and choking, under the thumb of some authoritarian rule (like the KKK.) So I figured, that what I like to do is lean against the movement of the pendulum. Dampen it, and try to have it keep from getting too extreme in one direction or the other. But a concurrent realization that I made, was that my allegiance changed accordingly. Sometimes I was campaigning for McGovern, and sometimes I was voting for Bush. And in the 10,000 ft. view, that is what we all do. Sometimes the Red states take control, sometimes its Blue. So, either the population changes its mind, or the parties change their platforms, but the pendulum keeps swinging. The fringes are never satisfied, because as soon as they succeed in pulling the ship onto their course, EVERYBODY else is trying to turn the wheel back the other way. So for Overtone to say that the republican party is guided by a core of wrong minded individuals, might be true at the moment, but it is not realistic to say that all Republican decisions for the last 47 years have been evil. And the things that any representative represents, are real components of our makeup, as a country. We are just as responsible for our countrymen (women) when the find a cure in a university, as when the make Meth in West Virginia. Neither is a result of just Republican or Democratic action or inaction. But certain things do cause other things. Unintended consequences. Like the meth in W. Virgina. Lots of folk in rural W. Virginia are on the dole. Perhaps this is part of the formula. Who knows. Control is important to people. When somebody else has power over you, most people do not like that. Who is oppressor and who is the victim, who is the master and who is the slave, who is the parent and who is the child, who is the ward and who is the benefactor, are very very important questions to humans, and families and states and countries, and thus important parts of politics, at all times. I reserve the right, in this discussion to be advocate for the oppressed. Even if they are WASPS on occasion, or atheists, or Irish Roman Catholics. There are good people, of good judgement and good intentions, and fine intellect, sitting on both sides of the isle. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, Who was in control of the Senate and the house, during the times of better economy? Was the economy on it way up or down when the president in question took office. Do people vote democrat when they are feeling good, trusting and open, and vote republican when they are feeling threatened? Do you figure the tendency of the economy to be better under democratic presidents, is correlation, or causation? Take the crash for instance. If subprime loans held by Fannie and Freddie, at the bequest of the people pushing for low income housing, undermined the mortgage backed security market, and the economy tanked as a result, having a subsequent commercial real estate downturn and defaults of prime mortgages and problems with leverage all over the system, how would you assign the blame or credit to the sitting president, as some of the causes of the situation were put in place by the last three administrations, who may have been of the other party, or where the congress may have been controlled by the other party? Regards, TAR SwansonT, So which part of planned parenthood do you figure the controlling faction of Republicans find worth closing the government, to stop? Regards, TAR

DrP, OK, I lost the argument. But I still maintain that it is important to "include" the religious right in the country. As important as it is to "include" the communist, or the follower of Malcolm X. When looking at the last 47 years, we would not be where we are, in terms of concern for our fellow man, without the religious right. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, I know, but part of the problem some people have with planned parenthood, is the abortion part. They are against abortion, based on the guidance of their religion, and would rather their tax money not fund it. They may or may not believe in birth control. Regards, TAR

Overtone, Well, as SwansonT makes me realize, certain planks of the Republican party are linked to religious doctrine and not secular, properly considered, rational, "all beliefs considered", type arguments. In this regard, and in the sense that the Tea Party is strong in their need to cross the church and state line on several issues, and in regards to the way some Tea Party followers seem to be racist and homophobic, I tend to place these leanings in the "fringe", fundamentalist area of the party, and not at the core. These actors are to be discouraged from following anti-constitutional routes, in terms of their insertion of church in state, and intolerance of people of other beliefs. There have been times in the last 40 years where the democratic party was controlled by radicals and extremists. Still the democratic party "panders" to feminist, black, communist, anti-war, anti-business, and gay constituents. Taking any faction of either major party and characterizing them as the "core" of the party is somewhat dangerous. You are likely to be wrong. Regards, TAR

The Pope said many things that I agree with. He is not Republican, not an American, not an atheist. He said more things that follow traditional liberal and progressive lines, than that follow traditional conservative and hard-line Catholic lines. His words helped Boehner make his decision to leave congress. Democrats will not shed a tear on losing Boehner. They probably should though, as he at least tried to reel the Tea Party in. A voice of moderation, so to speak. SwansonT, The right to lifers have a point. A fetus does not have no rights, just because it is attached to its mother. The choice advocates have a point. A woman's body belongs to her, and is not somebody else's property because a fertilized egg is in there. Personally I side with my Aunt, who is a strong feminist and choice advocate, in that a woman should not be forced to carry a baby to term, that she does not want. Especially in the case of rape. But the lines blur in my mind as the fetus is older and older and more viable, especially with technology the way it is today where premature births can be handled. And the "choice" to terminate a pregnancy because tests show the fetus is not perfect, is putting a life and death decision in the hands of the mother and the doctor. It is worth thinking about when abortion is a medical procedure to protect the life of the mother, and when it is murder of choice. Regardless of what the bible says. Just from an atheist's point of view. Could a democrat not be grossed out by the thought of crushing the skull of a near term baby, on purpose? Regards, TAR My wife has a friend whose daughter had twin girls. One with Cerebral Palsy. I held that little girl in my lap for an hour and fell in love, holding my fingers over her fingers and feeling her responses and movements. I don't know what that has to do with the discussion. I don't think abortion was ever even a thought, but on a TV show the other week there was somebody with a Down's Syndrome baby, and there was discussion of whether it should be aborted or kept. It is a moral question. It does speak to where we draw the line on who and what we should protect. Regardless of religion or politics. Just life. we have neither the right to take such a life, nor the right to stop someone from avoiding an existence they cannot sustain well actually the pope is an American. A South American. Just not an American in the sense of a citizen of the United States of America.

SwansonT, I am not Catholic, and I believe in birth-control and planned parenthood. The point of not getting pregnant out of wedlock, is that out of wedlock you don't have a partner to help you raise the kid. The family value I am talking about, is having one (a family.) The personal responsibility I am talking about, is providing for your own children and not expecting someone else to do it. Regards, TAR

Overtone, I don't think you can tell a person to think like you. But then I have always been sort of type that marched to the beat of my own drummer. On many occasions you say the world is square where I know from experience that it is round. These two points of view are not mutually exclusive (as I know from working with the 12 segments of the sphere/cube.) For instance, I was raised at a time in this country where women and men had different roles. The men brought home the bacon, the women took care of the house and children. Since, the roles of men and women have blurred, but workable situations have not always come to pass. The role of family in a society is significant. The generation before me, had something called the extended family, where it was not just the couple that lived in a house with their children, but like the Waltons, the grandparents were there as well. These major roles are not written in stone, and can change, person to person and family to family. The expectations are different if you live on the family farm or work for a company that might relocate you. It is easier to pick up just your self and move than it is to pick up yourself and your significant other...or take your kids out of the school and the neighborhood they have developed as their own and move them to a place where they are a stranger. What we have developed, as roles, in cities is different than that in the countryside, different ethnic groups and nationalities have different ideas of what family is. Different levels of when inappropriate behavior brings shame upon the entire family. After all, they stone a woman that has sex outside of marriage in some countries, even today. But we have single mothers, fathers who have children with multiple women, divorce, same sex marriage, and any number of living conditions. Each with a variation of how much is taken care of by the union and how much is taken care of by relatives, how much is taken care of by friends, how much help is hired in, how much help comes from charity, how much help comes from the government (local, county, state and country) and how much help comes from the neighborhood. You ask, how we should unite with bigots and fundamentalists, and treat them as family. The constitution gives us the framework. You let everybody follow their own god, but pledge your fortune and honor to the union. We have been working the bugs out of the system since 1776. Abolition of slavery, franchisement of women, we even tried getting rid of alcohol and have waged wars on drugs. Saw a window sticker yesterday that told me that we are Americans...We shoot guns, drink beer and speak English. All three of those thing actually applied to me. I shot 22s at cans in the swamp when I was 13, I shot shotgun at a pheasant when I was 18, I have gone skeet shooting, and have been in the army and fired an M16 (along with a LAW and an M60 machine gun.) I drank every day through college and the army (up n 'til I quit over 30 years ago) and do indeed have only one language I am fluent in. The last 47 years have shown many changes. Some progress has been made on several fronts. Some stability and workability has been lost on several fronts. We have some "problems" in this county...like the young men who for some reason need to shoot up schools and movie theaters, and the drug gangs in Paterson, teenage pregnancy, and whatever else. But these things are "our" problems. Meth addiction broke up a family very close to me. We don't need more rules and laws, especially laws that are not agreed upon by 90 percent of the population. We need each of us to police ourselves and follow the laws we have together put in place. There will always be politics. Differences of opinion as to who should be in control, who should pay taxes, and what the taxes should be spent on. Who should be taking care of who, and what and who should be taken care of, will always exist. That is why we have elections. For you overtone to say that your way of looking at the world is the only correct way flies in the face of reality. We are a melting pot of many traditions, values, hopes and desires. We keep each other honest and hold each other to our constitution. We protect our way of life, from those who would take it away. The "family values" that have been a main plank in the Republican platform for the past 47 years are important to this country. The motto of "personal responsibility" has been a main plank in the Republican party for the last 47 years. Neither idea is a "problem". Regards, TAR